you realize, first of all, that the portion of time in our history wherein a fetus has been considered a person is comparatively tiny, right?
and you realize that comparing abortion to the experiences of enslaved people and of jewish people in nazi germany is incredibly insensitive, cruel, and highly inaccurate, right? i mean really. if you honestly believe that a fetus (that is not aware it exists, can’t feel pain, can’t think, etc.) is comparable to the experiences of sentient, feeling, thinking human beings, then i am truly concerned about your commitment to willful ignorance and your lack of compassion.
pointing out that the concept of ‘person’ has be reconceptualized over the years is not an argument to consider fetuses human beings. one of the many differences here is that previous reconfigurations of personhood did not infringe upon the human rights of other people.
besides, whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being, no person has the right to use another person’s body without their explicit and continual consent.
They’ve been considered persons for millenia: look at the Didache.
We are not being insensitive. we acknowledge that these people went through incredible suffering, and we lament that its happening again.
Just because someone doesn’t think or feel pain doesn’t mean you can kill them. Would you kill someone who is knocked out?! And, belive me, a child does feel pain during abortion quite early on in a pregnancy.
This argument isn’t our only one.
The pro-“choice” movement does infringe on other pople’s rights. What about the fathers who have thier kids taken away from them? What about the doctors forced to do abortions against their will?
Are you saying abortion is OK even if the child is alive?! That is horrible. The child didn’t choose to be there. What if someone was, unwillingly, trapped inside your house? Would you kill them?! No! That’s evil.
the “child” didn’t choose to be there because it is an insentient fetus that is incapable of making decisions. comparing a pregnant person to an inanimate house is incredibly offensive. and allowing a person to occupy my house is completely not comparable to something occupying my body against my will. this comparison (like the ones made in the poster) is completely ludicrous, inaccurate, and offensive.
i assume when you saying that the pro-choice movement infringes on fathers’ rights, you’re talking about them not being able to force their partner to carry a pregnancy to term against their will? well, perhaps you’re unaware, but there is only one person who is directly physically affected be pregnancy: the pregnant person. therefore, no one else gets a say in whether or not they remain pregnant. to allow other people the right to control what happens to another persons body infringes upon their right to bodily autonomy and safety of person.
as for your insistence that a fetus feels pain quite early in the pregnancy, this is not true. sorry. i suggest you try reading some current medical literature on the subject. and don’t forget get to examine whether or not pain even exists without a conscious experience of it.
and of course i wouldn’t kill someone who had been “knocked out”. an autonomous person who can think and feel, has loved ones and people who depend on them, and has dreams and aspirations, is monumentally different than an insentient fetus/embryo/zygote. now, bringing up these kinds of issues when discussing abortion is a common way for anti-abortion folk to derail from the topic at hand, so i don’t want to speak to it in any great detail. but if i were in charge of someone who was “knocked out” to the extent that they were in a coma with very little change of recovery, would i consider removing them from life support? probably. although i truly wouldn’t know what exactly i would do until i was in that situation myself. moreover, this hypothetical knocked out person does not, i assume, reside in my uterus. if this person were to crawl their way up my vagina and into my uterus then i would maintain that i have the right to expel them as they are infringing on my right to bodily autonomy and safety. no one gets to use my body without my explicit and continual consent.
to compare abortion, a life saving procedure, to these historical scenarios is inaccurate and completely insensitive. it is a common appeal to emotion fallacy (a logical fallacy rampant in the anti-abortion community) wherein those who are against abortion bring in discussions of past reprehensible atrocities in an attempt to associate the feelings one has towards them with abortion. i’ve seen the comparisons made the other way as well. that is, pro-choice people have compared anti-abortion advocates to slave-owners attempting to enslave those who are able to get pregnant. now let me be clear, i do not sanction pro-choice people using slavery comparisons either. but the fact that this comparison can be twisted either way should help illuminate the futility and fault in making such comparisons at all. and if it doesn’t, then i suggest to get yourself to a history class stat!
comparing abortion to slavery and the Holocaust is not only cruel and inaccurate, it also reeks of desperation. if the anti-abortion side cannot make their case without bringing in such appeals to emotion, then they seriously need to reevaluate their whole position.
pro tip: it is not possible to perform an abortion once the fetus has been born. at that point it becomes and infant. this would make it either infanticide or neonatalcide (depending on the circumstances). learn your terms, please.
Look, comparing the human body to property is totally fair game since the U.S. government allows people to give parts of the body to others through organ donations, and even vampirism (assuming it’s consensual.) This is because our government and society has a dualistic mind frame. That means that the human body and the human consciousness are separate. In a sense, the mind/spirit/etc. or res cogitons owns as property the body or res extensia. The body, is merely a vessel for the mind. Therefore, it is fair in this country to compare a body to a piece of property like a house.
Next, the father made a contribution to the pregnancy, and in a sense, signed a contract with the mother. If the mother backs out on the contract, she should give fair recompense. Obviously, it would be hard to return the sperm, however, spermcenter.com tells us that artificial insemination costs $300-800. So I think if you’re going to argue for fairness, then everytime a woman has an abortion, the man should be paid back for his lost investment, about $300-800.
If you kill a born person in a way that causes them no pain against their will, it is still murder. Thus, the fact the fetus does not feel pain, doesn’t matter.
Abortion is only a life saving procedure in situations where it saves a woman’s life. That accounts for about 3% of abortions on a good day. So no, abortion is not a lifesaving procedure most of the time. However it is always a life ending procedure. And since the child is human. It is ending a human life. Also, since a fetus is an individual separate, though dependent on the mother, abortion is ending a human being’s life. Now, you hide behind the fact that a fetus can be a human being, but you don’t consider it a person. Which were the exact same claims made by proponents of slavery in America and the Holocaust. Thus, a comparison between the two is accurate.
It is only an emotional fallacy if we say, “The Holocaust makes you sad, therefore, abortion must also make you sad since it is like it.” However, we are making a completely different argument. We are simply saying that the premise used to justify abortion, “The individual, though a human being, is not a person” is the same argument used to justify the Holocaust and slavery. Since we did not accept that premise then, we should not accept it now.
Considering the prochoice insistence on talking about woman haters and misogynists, (despite the fact most prolifers are women and great feminist leaders have been prolife,) you really have no leg to stand on accusing prolifers of emotional fallacies.